This still amazes me. This is going out to all the Bush supporters/apologists, Bolverk, Jamoke, etc...

After all the hubub about supporting the troops and what not they go and pull this shit. You wanna support the troops? Fucken pay them more!!!

How patriotic is it to hamstring the finances of the guys fighting for your own country?
Man I hate Bush.... everyday it becomes clear he only gives a shit about the rich fuckers in the states.

Jamoke

10th July 03, 10:41 PM

you bet your ass i am..honestly

"When attacked insult, and insult to kill"

"boyd, the kid with the HUGE nose is my BITCH, he will always be my bitch, he is owned by me until the world ends and he has admitted this fact".

willy

10th July 03, 10:51 PM

the way the unemployment rates are going up he'll have hundreds waiting in line to take a fallen soliders place just so they can eat.

The Wastrel

11th July 03, 08:38 AM

Yeah, it's almost only people who've NEVER worn a uniform who think that partisan politics make a big difference to the rank and file's wallets. The only money increases with changing administraions is at the level of defense contracting.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Vargas

11th July 03, 09:04 AM

"Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep

Is cheaper than them uniforms an' they're starvation cheap

An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit

Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit."

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

Bolverk

11th July 03, 11:33 AM

It is funny that you post this elipson. I just received a letter from Senator John McCain last night on this very topic. And, as I would expect, you have not a clue what has really happened and you lay the blame at the wrong feet.

Before Ronald Reagan left office, he set a minimum limit that was considered the lowest level of preparedness and size for an effective peace time military. By the time Bill Clinton had left office, he had reduced our military to almost half of that minimum. Where you aware of that fact sir?

Also, it is true that we have soldiers collecting food stamps in order to eat. Now I have not received anything from the other party on this information. However, Senator McCain, in coordination with Citizens Against Government Waste, have provided me with some interesting facts on this subject.

Some prominent high level Senators, from well to do states, have packed our defense bill with over $50 Billion in pork barrell spending. This includes providing more C130's then was requested, I believe four were requested, but over 200 were built. When at the same time the Navy's aircraft are over 18 years old, the Airforce aircraft are over 20 years old, and our soldiers are not getting enough pay.

All of this is a result of porking up the bill to serve the political ambitions of a few Senators and Congressman. This is the real tragedy.

So, get the real story straight. Eight years of a military hating President named William Jefferson Clinton have come home to roost. And the continued political greed of some others are exacerbating the problem.

Does George W. Bush need to do more? You bet he does. However, he did not create the problem, it was left on the door step for him by an irresponsible person who put his own political ambitions ahead of the security of this nation.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

The tax laws are written by men with considerable net worth, and with little understanding of what wage-earners must do to make ends meet.

Omar

11th July 03, 11:54 AM

I was right! You ARE a party activist. Have you no shame? Coming on here with your party line. You just received a letter from Senator McCain!?! Good for you. At least we know where you stand. Goofball.

>Before Ronald Reagan left office, he set a minimum limit that was considered the lowest level of preparedness and size for an effective peace time military

Considered the lowest level by who? You realize that this is a meaningless statement. It supplies no information whatsoever.

>Also, it is true that we have soldiers collecting food stamps in order to eat.

More information please. Active service soldiers? Somebody who is actually IN the military please clear this up. Or is Bolverk talking about after they come home, in which case, no kidding. But I wouldn't throw stones in glass houses on this issue. There's plenty of soldiers on this board. Speak up.

>Some prominent high level Senators, from well to do states, have packed our defense bill with over $50 Billion in pork barrell spending.. . . and our soldiers are not getting enough pay.

Perhaps true. Your point is? No Senators named, no projects named. Another point with no actual information in it. Strangely, I can't even figure out how it's supposed to be an anti-Clinton/pro-Bush remark. You better get back to propaganda school for a refresher course. Dumbass.

>Does George W. Bush need to do more? You bet he does.

You know, outside of political spokespeople, I've never ever met a person who precedes his attacks by these dumb meaningless rhetorical questions. Nobody asked you if George needs to do more. Do more what? Aggressive invasion of foregin countires? More alienation of previous allies? More Tax breaks for the rich? Apparently you think he does.

BAH ! Puny Humans !

Bolverk

11th July 03, 01:07 PM

Omar, I am ex-military. And a Senator would never name another Senator is such a letter, it was a survey supported by John McCain and Citizens Agains Government Waste to find out if people were aware of the problems in our military.

George Bush needs to do more for our soldiers. They need money, support, equipment, and a citizenry with genuine concern for them.

As far as your insults and innuendos go, I couldn't care less about your opinion of me. So hammer away all you want.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

The tax laws are written by men with considerable net worth, and with little understanding of what wage-earners must do to make ends meet.

Samuel Browning

11th July 03, 02:04 PM

I think that Bush is a patriot, but he is also a poor manager with delusions concerning the effects of his tax cut. I would rather not receive a couple hundred dollars back and have it go towards decent salaries then see the present system in which the rich receive a big tax cut on divident earnings and we rent, rather than buy military cargo craft from Boeing at billions more. That being said I do believe our enlisted soldiers need a raise, and Bolverk is correct that money that could pay them is being diverted into bipartisan pork.

Freddy

11th July 03, 02:07 PM

Is there a reason why The Wastrel refered you as a "crypto facist".

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Bolverk

11th July 03, 02:39 PM

Is there a reason why The Wastrel refered you as a "crypto facist".

It would be best to ask Wastrel. I respect him, and he has some opinions that I think are right on the mark. However, it is difficult at best to hold a conversation on a forum. Sometimes what we read is does not come across as intended by the writer.

All in all, Wastrel seems to have genuine concern for this great nation. I would actually call him an ardent patriot. So I have no problem if he disagrees with my opinions or what I say, because he does so in the spirit of patriotism, and no one can ask more then that. I would gladly shake his hand if I ever had the opportunity. And I have the highest respect and gratitude for those who have chosen to serve this country in the Armed Forces.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

The tax laws are written by men with considerable net worth, and with little understanding of what wage-earners must do to make ends meet.

Bolverk

11th July 03, 02:42 PM

Thank you Samuel Browning. I was actually shocked at the amount of pork attached to a defense bill. How do they live with themselves when they do such things?

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

The tax laws are written by men with considerable net worth, and with little understanding of what wage-earners must do to make ends meet.

Samuel Browning

11th July 03, 03:31 PM

eeasily Bolverk, they live with themselves easily

The Wastrel

11th July 03, 06:36 PM

"I would actually call him an ardent patriot."

Thank you. Very much.

As for McCain, well I think he's probably the best Republican there is, and I think it's only fair to point out that he and Dubya have a fair number of serious policy differences. Particularly over the military.

As for military drawdown under Clinton...Look, the Cold War effectively ended between 1989 and 1991. A reduction in manpower is most CERTAINLY called for, and in fact, is right in line with the new "Revolution in Military Affairs" trumpeted by folks like Shinseki and later Rumsfeld, and which I don't entirely disagree with. In case anyone didn't notice, that "gutted" military fought two wars in the past year and a half...successfully. So who's to really say that the manpower reductions are wrong? In fact, if higher wages are what we want...maybe the reductions are right, no? In any case, they appear to have been tactically sound, and they were also taken from units such as the 1st infantry division, which plays only a very doubtful role in American security.

I served through the Clinton administration, and saw substantial increases in wages and benefits while I was in. But you can't forget Congress' role in budgeting and finance etc.

We don't do soldiers any favors if we think that making the force bigger is going to be good for them. Responsible use of military force and comparable, competitive benefits are the way to take care of them.

Oh and...I get letters from the Republican party too...funny. And I can verify that there are active duty soldiers on food stamps...but I think the entire thing is a bit exaggerated.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Vargas

11th July 03, 07:41 PM

Military budget priorities are fucked up. Always have been, always will be, and here's why. Suppose you have a senator, Senator Hogjowl, from the great state of Texalahomassippi. Senator Hogjowl likes being a senator and knows that directing federal money to his constituents back home is a sure-fire way to get re-elected. Senator Hogjowl happens to be on the Senate Armed Services Committee. If a military funding bill, construction project, R&amp;D project, equipment aquisition, etc... doesn't include something for his home state, the good Senator won't vote for it and will loudly declare that the Pentagon is 'fleecing' America and how dare they rip off the people of this fine nation. If, however, said bill, project, aquisition or whatever does direct millions of dollars (and the attendant jobs) to his state, why, Senator Hogjowl is behind it 110%, because this pork, er, I mean, noble project, is vital to the national security of the United States and only a pinko commie traitor would dare vote against this much-needed defense legislation. That's why Pat Schroeder, congressional idiot from Colorado in the 1980s, blasted the Pentagon for wasting tax money but fought tooth and nail with the USAF and convinced them to keep Lowry Air Force Base in Denver open. In case anyone doesn't know, Lowry AFB DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING RUNWAY!!!! The local citizens bitched and moaned so much about jet noise that the Air Force closed the runway and sent all the aircraft somewhere else. A complete waste of Air Force funds but they were helpless to do anything about it. That is only one of many examples I could rattle off. Truly pathetic.

So, as you can guess, the contractors learned their lesson. Every tank, jet, helicopter and missile in the DOD, as well as anything connected to national missile defense, is made piecemeal in as many states as possible (the V-22 tilt-rotor has parts made in all 50 U.S. states, mind-boggling as that sounds). That's why military pay and compensation get low priority (the money goes to people who, most likely, won't vote in congressional elections). Paying larger bonuses for hazardous duty doesn't get much congressional support when all you have to do is declare stop-loss due to a national crisis and just keep everyone on active-duty no matter how low their morale gets. But God help anyone that tries to close down a useless base or cancel an unneeded aircraft or submarine, because then you're talking about certain states losing enormous sums of federal money. Until the U.S. public pulls their head out of their ass and stops rewarding their dumb-ass senators and representatives for funneling defense pork into their states, this sad game of "What's in it for my constituents?" will continue. So, yes, the President and his budget guys do ask for the money. However, all Presidents (including GWB) are forced into asking for astronomical amounts because they know they have to grease a whole bunch of congressional palms or nothing will get done and the defense authorization bill will just sit on some jackass's desk over on Capitol Hill.

So if you guys want to blame all this on the White House, have a nut, but realize that Congress is who I'd be pinging if I was the Army Times or any other newspaper. Just a thought (or two).

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

elipson

11th July 03, 07:51 PM

I'm not sure how I'm mixing my facts here. I'm just quoting this editorial from the armytimes.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.

The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.

Are you guys blaming the past administration for the current administrations nixing of these proposals?
Feel free to point out any inconsistincies in this guys article. You're all probably more knowledgable about this stuff than I am. Except maybe Jamoke, the only shit he knows about politics he learned from Foxnews.

Omar

11th July 03, 09:09 PM

As far as insults and innuendos go, I've been awfully gentle. I just called you a goofball and a dumbass. I'm sure you were called much worse when you were in the service. I think crypto-fascist was more accurate though.

You still dodged most of my questions. You only anserwed what George was supposed to do more of. So your letter from John McCain was actually a form letter. hehe. If no one and no projects are named, all it says is, er . . .some people are soing bad things. So what's your point? Every article you've posted has been a hatchet piece and you have been amazingly simplistic in your explanations while claiming oversimplification when you are criticized.

You refer to a "military hating President named William Jefferson Clinton". Is he a military hater because he reduced spending? You yourself were just now complaining of unnamed pork barrel projects. Why is it that opposing War is unpatriotic or anti-military? I though our military was supposed to be for defending us against foreign threats. Virtually all of the military actions I have seen put into motion in my lifetime were clearly to serve corporate or political interests. Outside of WWII when were was our domestic secutiry ever threatened? These excessive forays into other coutries affairs have increased the threats, not reduced them. The threats we have been in the habit of using military force to repel have been to our economic stability only.

Gunboat diplomacy has been our foreign policy and I launch the occasional ad hominum at you because you haven't earned my respect here. So far the only MA related comment I've found you make on any thread was the followeing:

"Thou do protest to much. There are many great martial artists who attained Black Belts before the age of eighteen. Why would you want to limit the potential of the young? Why should they not receive the same recognition for their hard work?"

And that was in reference to 2 girls not even 13 years old having black belts. Do you even train in anything? I think it's relevant because I don't believe you are a MA'ist who just happens to have political views. I believe you are a political hack who has come here strictlty to hammer away at a political message.

to all YOU lefty's. the sooner you realize my man BUSH is gonna be around for another 5 years, the better off you will be.

so shut the fukk up lefty's, just make sure you vote for DEAN, that guarantee's my man another term.

The Wastrel

11th July 03, 11:36 PM

Hehe, Jamoke's right about Dean...

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

jing shen gou

11th July 03, 11:41 PM

I call him Der Furer.

the world you live in is just a sugar coated toping. beneath it is another world. The real world. and to survive there you must learn to pull the trigger!!!-Blade

Omar

12th July 03, 02:47 PM

Hey! If it's from Vermont, it's gotta be good. What's wrong with Dean? I haven't got any ammo to defend him with anyways. I just want to know why he's supposedly so weak. I don't even know who the front runners are right now. I thought Dean was doing pretty well.